Com. v. Lewis, J.
3575 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- On October 7, 2012, two people at 711 N. 3rd Street were shot: Stephanie Freeman (killed by a single gunshot to the head) and Chrissy Johnson (survived facial gunshot, identified defendant as shooter).
- Phone records, SEPTA video, DNA on a scarf, and ballistics linked Jibrell Lewis to the scene; Lewis was arrested Oct. 12, 2012 carrying a loaded handgun and items (mask, body armor) in a bag.
- After medical treatment, Lewis was interviewed by homicide detectives, given oral and written Miranda warnings, and signed a written statement; he did not testify at trial and his custodial statement was not introduced at trial.
- A jury convicted Lewis of first‑degree murder, aggravated assault, and two counts of carrying a firearm without a license; he was sentenced to life without parole for first‑degree murder plus consecutive terms on other counts.
- Post‑trial, Lewis challenged (1) denial of his motion to suppress statements (Miranda/two‑step interrogation), (2) exclusion/limitation of defense expert testimony on diminished capacity/heat of passion/unreasonable self‑defense, and (3) refusal to give manslaughter instructions and other evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Lewis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression: admissibility of custodial statements / two‑step interrogation | Detectives provided oral and written Miranda warnings; waivers were knowing, intelligent, voluntary; Seibert two‑step facts not present | Lewis claimed an unlawful two‑step interrogation and an invalid oral Miranda waiver; statements involuntary or tainted | Court found credible testimony that oral and written Miranda warnings were given twice and waivers were valid; suppression denied |
| Expert testimony: diminished capacity defense admissibility under Rule 702 | Expert limited testimony appropriate because no medical basis shown for incapacity to form specific intent | Lewis argued Dr. Watson diagnosed unspecified depressive disorder with psychotic features that negated specific intent; expert should be allowed to explain diminished responsibility | Court excluded diminished‑capacity opinion on the ultimate issue because Dr. Watson's report lacked a medical basis tying disorder to inability to form specific intent; exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
| Expert reliance on defendant statements (Rule 703 / hearsay) | Expert may not repeat or rely on the defendant’s out‑of‑court, self‑serving statements unless introduced by the defendant or otherwise admissible; would be hearsay conduit | Lewis argued Rule 703 allows experts to rely on otherwise inadmissible data (his statements) as the basis for opinion | Court precluded Dr. Watson from parroting Lewis’s statements to police or to the expert because those were inadmissible hearsay and no independent factual predicate was in evidence (Lewis did not testify) |
| Jury instructions: voluntary and involuntary manslaughter (heat of passion) | No reasonable evidentiary basis for heat‑of‑passion or involuntary manslaughter instructions given facts (solicited encounter, gun pulled, shots to vital areas) | Lewis argued provocation and diminished responsibility supported manslaughter instructions | Court refused both instructions: record lacked serious provocation or evidence defendant acted without specific intent; first‑degree murder instruction was warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Basking, 970 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate review of suppression rulings defers to suppression court’s factual findings)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 627 A.2d 741 (Pa. Super. 1993) (trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude expert testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Cuevas, 832 A.2d 388 (Pa. 2003) (diminished capacity is an extremely limited defense and requires extensive psychiatric proof)
- Commonwealth v. Rosen, 42 A.3d 988 (Pa. 2012) (diminished capacity negates specific intent element when proven)
- Commonwealth v. McTullum, 738 A.2d 1007 (Pa. 1999) (expert must address cognitive functions relevant to specific intent to support diminished capacity)
- Commonwealth v. Towles, 106 A.3d 591 (Pa. 2014) (expert may not be used as a conduit to introduce a defendant’s out‑of‑court statements; distinguishes reliance on facts vs. parroting hearsay)